| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
dtguitarfan 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
 Posted: June 06 2012 at 18:12 |
 stonebeard wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
I have no problem with artificial sound manipulations when their purpose is providing things that the player could never provide no matter how good he/she is, but I do not like manipulations when the purpose is to supersede the ability of the performer. |
If you get rid of things like that, say goodbye to almost all electronic music. There would be no Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Autechre, Aphex Twin, or daft punk without step sequencers, drum machines, delays, and so on. Could everything be played by a person? Probably, if you had 20 people in the group. I think people should stop getting so hung up on the fact that people use machines to make music. If we take away the machines for some vague "purity" reasons, the only thing we do is deny ourselves of music that wouldn't exist otherwise. It's really quite lame. |
The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music.
|
|
|
 |
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 17:05 |
Gerinski wrote:
I have no problem with artificial sound manipulations when their purpose is providing things that the player could never provide no matter how good he/she is, but I do not like manipulations when the purpose is to supersede the ability of the performer. |
If you get rid of things like that, say goodbye to almost all electronic music. There would be no Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Autechre, Aphex Twin, or daft punk without step sequencers, drum machines, delays, and so on. Could everything be played by a person? Probably, if you had 20 people in the group.
I think people should stop getting so hung up on the fact that people use machines to make music. If we take away the machines for some vague "purity" reasons, the only thing we do is deny ourselves of music that wouldn't exist otherwise.
It's really quite lame.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 16:10 |
|
^ without an arpeggiator we would never have had Baba O'Riley. Skill is not always in the playing, but in the knowing what to do with it.
Edited by Dean - June 06 2012 at 16:10
|
|
What?
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: June 06 2012 at 15:39 |
There are two different kinds of music manipulations.
One kind are effects that can not be achieved by the musician's technique, no matter how good he/she is. For example a chorus or flanger, there is no way a guitarist can play a clean guitar and make it sound with chorus. The same goes for soundscape effects, for example the sound of breaking sea waves to give some atmosphere to some music segment.
The other kind are manipulations which objective is to release effort or skill from the musician.
For example most modern keyboards / sythns have "arpeggiator" funcions so you just lay a chord and they play it as an arpeggio, at arbitrary speed and at the arpeggio sequence you choose. Or guitar pitch shifter / octaver effects in which you play single notes and the effect adds a 5th or/and a 3rd (major or minor if you have specified in which key the music is) so it sounds like you are playing chords when you are just playing single notes.
In this group there would also be those effects which effectively mask sloppy playing.
I have no problem with artificial sound manipulations when their purpose is providing things that the player could never provide no matter how good he/she is, but I do not like manipulations when the purpose is to supersede the ability of the performer.
|
|
Horizons
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 20 2011
Location: Somewhere Else
Status: Offline
Points: 16952
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 21:50 |
Disagree with Lady Gaga.
Others? yea
|
|
Crushed like a rose in the riverflow.
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 21:27 |
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
If Lady GaGa was really fat and ugly she would not stand a chance, same as Bieber and Beyonce. |
|
|
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14258
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 21:21 |
|
OP was interesting with the clip and how they can fix bad off tune singing in the studio - it really is talentless manufactured pop these days. When Elvis became a superstar it was because the man could actually sing, the same as The Beatles. If Lady GaGa was really fat and ugly she would not stand a chance, same as Bieber and Beyonce.
|
|
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 16:20 |
Failcore wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
There are still obscure bands in the lineup. Glen has to sell tickets, and this has been a problem, to the point that he's saying if it doesn't sell out ir come close this year, he's done. So OF COURSE he booked a few bigger names this year. Sad thing is it still hasn't sold out...yet. |
Well, there's an example of market forces at work in prog right there. It's not Glen's fault, but he's still having to play the game. I really think he could benefit by getting some prog groups not related to metal. In other words, axe Nightwish, and add TMV or some such. As the festival has been going more and more towards the power side of ProgPower, they have been narrowing their appeal to an already small audience. The set of people who like prog is fairly tiny; the set of people who like prog and metal is tiny^2 .
|
Say what you will. I'm actually EXTREMELY happy with the lineup. I'm going to get albums from the following signed: Symphony X (!!!! - they're going to be mad at me I'm going to have so many things for them to sign) Epica Redemption Beyond the Bridge Serenity So, definitely no problems here.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 16:07 |
Guldbamsen wrote:
If you read through all of my post Ivan, you would perhaps also spot why I chose to write that about pop. Depending on the discussion, I find it helpful that people have their definitions straight, which you obviously got, and especially when we are talking about something as fleeting as pop. Of course I know what pop is in this instance, but yeah thanks for highlighting the obvious and killing my mojo... |
Not so obvious, I have read in this forum hundreds of times that POP = Popular.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 05 2012 at 16:08
|
|
|
|
Guldbamsen
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23104
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 16:03 |
|
If you read through all of my post Ivan, you would perhaps also spot why I chose to write that about pop. Depending on the discussion, I find it helpful that people have their definitions straight, which you obviously got, and especially when we are talking about something as fleeting as pop. Of course I know what pop is in this instance, but yeah thanks for highlighting the obvious and killing my mojo...
|
|
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 15:55 |
Guldbamsen wrote:
Pop can be everything under the sun. It can also just be popular music. Mozart was pop.
|
Not in the contemporary understanding.
| It is tempting to confuse pop music with popular music. The New Grove Dictionary Of Music and Musicians, the musicologist's ultimate reference resource, identifies popular music as the music since industrialization in the 1800's that is most in line with the tastes and interests of the urban middle class. This would include an extremely wide range of music from vaudeville and minstrel shows to heavy metal. Pop music, on the other hand, has primarily come into usage to describe music that evolved out of the rock 'n roll revolution of the mid-1950's and continues in a definable path to today.
|
Pop music has certain characteristics: - ABAB structure
- Length between 2:30 and 4:30 minutes with exceptions
- An aim of appealing to a general audience, rather than to a particular sub-culture or ideology.
- Emphasis in recording and production, over live presentation
- Simple lyrics and based in feelings and universal themes, most frequently in personal affections
- Frequently oriented towards dance.
Mozart in no way can be considered Pop.
Some people even consider POP a musical genre Independence from Rock, Jazz or Folk.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 15:52 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
There are still obscure bands in the lineup. Glen has to sell tickets, and this has been a problem, to the point that he's saying if it doesn't sell out ir come close this year, he's done. So OF COURSE he booked a few bigger names this year. Sad thing is it still hasn't sold out...yet. |
Well, there's an example of market forces at work in prog right there. It's not Glen's fault, but he's still having to play the game. I really think he could benefit by getting some prog groups not related to metal. In other words, axe Nightwish, and add TMV or some such. As the festival has been going more and more towards the power side of ProgPower, they have been narrowing their appeal to an already small audience. The set of people who like prog is fairly tiny; the set of people who like prog and metal is tiny^2 .
|
|
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 14:25 |
There are still obscure bands in the lineup. Glen has to sell tickets, and this has been a problem, to the point that he's saying if it doesn't sell out ir come close this year, he's done. So OF COURSE he booked a few bigger names this year. Sad thing is it still hasn't sold out...yet.
|
|
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 13:53 |
Dean wrote:
Failcore wrote:
This. In defense of OP, there is commercialism in all music, but it is more blatant and unabashed in pop music. That's not saying there isn't marketing and industry forces present in other genres. But in the pop music arena, they have focused so much on marketing to the point that it is deleterious to the music. Call me a cliche progger, but I think this dysfunction came about in the early 80s, when record label execs figured out you could just hand a hot dude/chick a guitar and use studio magic to cover his lack of instrumental acumen and make big money.
|
It has always been like that - The Monkees didn't play on their early recordings, neither did The Sweet. While live on stage Sweet were a balls-out heavy rock band in the studio they were singing vocals over sessions musicians recording of Wig-Wam Bam and Poppa Joe. At that time it was cheaper to pay a sessions guitarist £20 to record a track than spend hours on studio trickery.
|
Of course some hacks have always been extant. But now they seem to be far and away ruling the industry.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 13:52 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dictionary wrote:
Entertainment: 1. The act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion; amusement; solving the daily crossword puzzle is an entertainment for many. 2. Something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, especially a performance of some kind: the highlight of the ball was an elaborate entertainment. |
You're defining entertainment by it's word roots, not by what it actually means in the English language. These definitions include words and synonyms like "agreeable," "pleasure," "amusement," and "diversion," but not anything about power and lasting effect and unspeakable beauty and the experience of love, joy, and agony through music. Mere entertainment might engage the mind for the moment; it might even stick with you throughout the day if you get songs stuck in your head easily, but it will never change you, and it will never give you a taste of the experience of true beauty that humans really long for. |
Those synonyms are not replacements for "entertain" - you don't go to see an agreeablement, you don't come away having been pleasuremented, the artists on stage are not diversioners - while amusement is partial, not every entertainment will amuse you. The etymology of words is a means of understadning why we can use some words in some contexts and not in others, for examle the dictionary definition of entertain is most certainly "to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind" and "to hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting" and that is the reason why we use "entertainment" for a for an activity that diverts the mind. I think you are understating the lasting power of any "entertainment", belittling them with your own indifference as it were while overstating the life-changing effect of "art".
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Remember, I never said that music meant for entertainment couldn't have artistic value. In fact, I said just the opposite. I know full well that a great deal of classical music was meant for entertainment. I will defend the value of Rush's music till the day that I die, and they see themselves as entertainers. I'd imagine that most prog bands think the same way. I'm not "making distinctions based upon intent;" I'm making distinctions based upon musical value, regardless of intent. I never said anything about our modern analysis of classical music, either; our analysis is not the art, the music itself is. |
I fear you are still making distinctions based on intent ... you are giving a low value to music produced (in your eyes) solely for entertainment ... ie it is the intention of the artist merely to entertain. I am saying that all art is entertainment. This is not something I've just invented for this discussion - I have made this point dozens of times throughout this forum - all music is art, all art is entertainment. You can be as judgemental as you like on the value or worth of some of that art if you wish, but it is your judgement, not a universal truth.
|
I never said that those synonyms replaced the word "entertain;" they explain it. Entertainment is something that holds your attention with amusement or diversion; this definition suggests nothing of any real effect on the mind, any lasting change or any catharsis; it merely implies a pleasant distraction. Does this exclude the possiblility that a piece of music may be entertaining but also truly move the soul and make one experience true beauty and catharsis? No, it does not, but it does not include these in entertainment, either. The dictionary definition of the word "entertainment" implies no lasting value but a momentary diversion. |
I see no statute of limitations within any definition of "entertainment" - I do not believe there is any time duration implicit in entertainment.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
How can you tell me I'm "still making distinctions based on intent," when I've just given examples of music meant for entertainment that I consider to be great art, also? If you want another example, how about Coldplay? I think that their music is great modern art, some of the most beautiful stuff produced in the 20th century. What do you think they see their music as, other than entertainment? If you're a good artist, you can create good art even if you don't necessarily see your music as something beyond entertainment. I've already given examples, so please do not imply that I'm lying. |
Sorry - did it appear that I was implying you were lying? Please forgive, that was not my intention - I do not beleive that any of the examples you have given intend to produce mere entertainment.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I see your point in saying that "all art is entertainment;" I don't deny that something can have a lower purpose (entertainment, the diversion/distraction) as well as a higher purpose (the life-changing power of art), and I think you're right in saying that the higher purpose carries with it the lower purpose. |
I don't see music as having a lower purpose period or a higher one - it's just music.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I know that the determination of artistic value is heavily reliant on personal judgement, because no one experiences art in the same way. But I do believe that there is objective value and beauty, and I believe that we can recognize that value even if a piece of art does not profoundly effect us personally. There are no clear dividing lines; no one can objectively say whether Mozart or Beethoven is better, or whether Rush is better than Yes, or anything of that sort, but I do think that we can make distinctions between art that is good, art that is mediocre, and stuff that has so little artistic value that it can barely be considered art at all. |
But you appear to be saying that Mozart is better than Rush - and I don't accept that objective valuation.
|
|
What?
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 13:48 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
Failcore wrote:
A complete sidetrack, but Nightwish is going to be at PPUSA?!!! I might cancel my plans to go now. What a dreadful inclusion. |
No disrespect, but that's a silly reason not to go for two reasons: 1) they're not really part of the fesival but actually play the "pre-party" Wed and Thurs night shows, and 2) it's ONE of 16 bands at the festival.... |
Well, still I liked it when it was more about helping people discover obscure gems instead of spamming bands thatare already widely successful. Yet they have Epica, MaYan, Redemption, SyX, Kamelot, and now Nightwish playing. I wanted to go to hear good new music is all.
|
|
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 13:46 |
Dean wrote:
Failcore wrote:
darkshade wrote:
You want to know what pop music has become? Watch The Disney Channel.
/thread.
|
The man of few words sums it all up.
|
If you think the whole record buying public is under the age of eight then sure.
This is what I really don't get about this thread... you are not members of the demographic that is buying this manufactured pop you all so vocally decry. What does it matter that pre-teen girls pin-up pictures of Justin Beiber and Katy Perry - no one is expecting you to go and buy any of it.
This is not what is wrong with the music industry. |
My girlfriend and her sister still listen to the Bieb and the Disney pop tarts, and they are both well into their 20s. It happens quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 12:56 |
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dictionary wrote:
Entertainment: 1. The act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion; amusement; solving the daily crossword puzzle is an entertainment for many. 2. Something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, especially a performance of some kind: the highlight of the ball was an elaborate entertainment. |
You're defining entertainment by it's word roots, not by what it actually means in the English language. These definitions include words and synonyms like "agreeable," "pleasure," "amusement," and "diversion," but not anything about power and lasting effect and unspeakable beauty and the experience of love, joy, and agony through music. Mere entertainment might engage the mind for the moment; it might even stick with you throughout the day if you get songs stuck in your head easily, but it will never change you, and it will never give you a taste of the experience of true beauty that humans really long for. |
Those synonyms are not replacements for "entertain" - you don't go to see an agreeablement, you don't come away having been pleasuremented, the artists on stage are not diversioners - while amusement is partial, not every entertainment will amuse you. The etymology of words is a means of understadning why we can use some words in some contexts and not in others, for examle the dictionary definition of entertain is most certainly "to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind" and "to hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting" and that is the reason why we use "entertainment" for a for an activity that diverts the mind. I think you are understating the lasting power of any "entertainment", belittling them with your own indifference as it were while overstating the life-changing effect of "art".
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Remember, I never said that music meant for entertainment couldn't have artistic value. In fact, I said just the opposite. I know full well that a great deal of classical music was meant for entertainment. I will defend the value of Rush's music till the day that I die, and they see themselves as entertainers. I'd imagine that most prog bands think the same way. I'm not "making distinctions based upon intent;" I'm making distinctions based upon musical value, regardless of intent. I never said anything about our modern analysis of classical music, either; our analysis is not the art, the music itself is. |
I fear you are still making distinctions based on intent ... you are giving a low value to music produced (in your eyes) solely for entertainment ... ie it is the intention of the artist merely to entertain. I am saying that all art is entertainment. This is not something I've just invented for this discussion - I have made this point dozens of times throughout this forum - all music is art, all art is entertainment. You can be as judgemental as you like on the value or worth of some of that art if you wish, but it is your judgement, not a universal truth.
|
I never said that those synonyms replaced the word "entertain;" they explain it. Entertainment is something that holds your attention with amusement or diversion; this definition suggests nothing of any real effect on the mind, any lasting change or any catharsis; it merely implies a pleasant distraction. Does this exclude the possiblility that a piece of music may be entertaining but also truly move the soul and make one experience true beauty and catharsis? No, it does not, but it does not include these in entertainment, either. The dictionary definition of the word "entertainment" implies no lasting value but a momentary diversion. How can you tell me I'm "still making distinctions based on intent," when I've just given examples of music meant for entertainment that I consider to be great art, also? If you want another example, how about Coldplay? I think that their music is great modern art, some of the most beautiful stuff produced in the 20th century. What do you think they see their music as, other than entertainment? If you're a good artist, you can create good art even if you don't necessarily see your music as something beyond entertainment. I've already given examples, so please do not imply that I'm lying. I see your point in saying that "all art is entertainment;" I don't deny that something can have a lower purpose (entertainment, the diversion/distraction) as well as a higher purpose (the life-changing power of art), and I think you're right in saying that the higher purpose carries with it the lower purpose. I know that the determination of artistic value is heavily reliant on personal judgement, because no one experiences art in the same way. But I do believe that there is objective value and beauty, and I believe that we can recognize that value even if a piece of art does not profoundly effect us personally. There are no clear dividing lines; no one can objectively say whether Mozart or Beethoven is better, or whether Rush is better than Yes, or anything of that sort, but I do think that we can make distinctions between art that is good, art that is mediocre, and stuff that has so little artistic value that it can barely be considered art at all.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
Guldbamsen
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23104
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 12:50 |
Man that hurt my brain! Just read through this nonsense over two takes, and people should really think before posting. Yeah well maybe so should I. BUT - for future references and as long as we're talking music: Be sure to have a definition of what you mean ready, or else all of the tongue-twisters, semantics junkies and IT lawyers are going to jump on you like a regular kangaroo gang-bang. Again we seem to be headed over to that most precious of questions: What is (insert type) music? Pop can be everything under the sun. It can also just be popular music. Mozart was pop. Admittedly I prefer music where the musicians themselves also have a certain something to say, and not merely act as some kind of tasteless sonic wallpaper, but that is my preference. I like Fiona Apple, Amy Winehouse and some others that I forget, but I can somewhat understand why certain people get a bad taste in their mouths whenever the subject turns to pop. Then again, like others here have mentioned, it is not really meant for us - or indeed everybody - just like Universe Zero aren't meant for 9 year old girls who also fancy Twillight.
|
|
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
|
|
Luna
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 28 2010
Location: Funky Town
Status: Offline
Points: 12794
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 12:31 |
|
OP is SO BRAVE
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
How to Create a Pop Star
